The Serenity

2002-06-20T09:48:00.000-04:00

Israel's New Strategy May Be Working

Following Israel's announcement that it would retake Palestinian land following terrorist attacks, Yasser Arafat called on Palestinians to stop the attacks.

I think this new plan can be effective, as long as Israel is willing to return the land when the attacks stop. Furthermore, I think it can easily be combined with a proposal like the one I stated earlier, in which Israel offers to give complete Palestinian control over a piece of disputed territory if the attacks stop for a substantial amount of time.

Because many Palestinians believe "martyrdom" is the path to heaven, and because pro-Palestinians groups provide financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers, Israel needs to use "carrot and stick" methods to stop terrorism. Taking land following terrorist attacks, and granting land following periods of no attacks, are virtually the only techniques at Israel's disposal to make suicide bombings unattractive to the Palestinians.

William Saletan posts a similar analysis of the new policy on Slate. He points out that this new policy is in fact an extension of the idea of 'land for peace': "Take our peace, lose your land."

2002-06-18T07:13:00.000-04:00

On other websites:
The Quiet Giant, The Wye Oak

Not many trees get obituaries when they die, but this 460-year-old oak did. It fell in a storm on June 6th. It even got a tribute from Maryland's Governor: "I was deeply saddened tonight to learn of the loss of one of our state's most historic, beautiful and stately natural resources," said Gov. Parris N. Glendening. (And, as my husband just noted, many trees have been logged, but this is probably one of the first that's been blogged.)

2002-06-17T06:05:00.000-04:00

Review of Polygon, the Dancing Bear

I liked this blog by Wastenaw County (MI) Commissioner Lawrence Kestenbaum. Larry is already well-known on the internet for his website the Political Graveyard, a biographical database of American politicians with an emphasis on where they are buried. Polygon, the Dancing Bear, is a more free-form site, with in-depth essays on whatever strikes Larry's fancy. Currently, a particular focus of the site is the congressional redistricting underway in Michigan. Other essays discuss Google, the decline of newspaper quality, and copyright law. It also features 50 versions of the "Nigerian" email scam. (That's the one where a person claims to have large sums of money stranded in some African country, and asks for your help -- and bank account -- to get it out.)

At points, the writing on this site approaches the poetic. Here is Larry's description of the operating room where he was about to undergo surgery: "The hushed crowd of doctors and retainers in immaculate uniforms, made me think of ... the inner sanctum of the grand lodge of some great secret society." Another interesting feature is that the site uses custom-written html, rather than using one of the available blogging applications such as Movable Type or Blogger.

Many of the essays have a Michigan focus, and perhaps they will be of less interest to people in other regions. Still, as one of the few blogs written by a working politician, this site is a good source of insights into the operation of local government.

2002-06-16T17:13:00.000-04:00

On other sites:
Madeline Albright, Femme Fatale

An Egyptian newspaper has this to say about former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright: "The American president Bill Clinton, with the most famous scandal regarding women, was in love with the childish Jewess Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state. He would make no decision without getting the approval of this woman, who became notorious for her short garments…” (Translation courtesy of the Middle East Media Research Institute.)

That is my new goal for when I’m Albright’s age – to have the Arab press denounce me for my revealing clothing and claim that the President is in love with me.

2002-06-14T19:04:00.000-04:00

Why North Korea is Such a Mess
A Brief History of Korea's Problems

North Korea is a hot topic, with numerous reports on the plight of starving North Koreans trying to get out of the country. Here's some some basic historical background so readers can understand why North Korea is such a mess.

Korea is a fairly small country, and perhaps for this reason, few Americans know much about it. Many have no idea where it is located – it’s a peninsula that juts off from southern Siberia, where the Asian mainland come closest to Japan.

For many centuries, Korea was part of the Chinese empire, and relations with China were generally quite good. However, Japan, limited to a string of fairly small islands, wanted territory for expansion. Intense rivalry developed between Japan and China over Korea. Koreans desperately wanted the wars to stop – Koreans’ desire to be left alone led Korea to be nicknamed “the Hermit Kingdom.”

In 1895, Japan won a major war with China and got control of Korea. (Japan also took Taiwan from China during this war, leading to another set of continuing problems in the Far East, but that’s a different topic.) During the first half of the 20th century, Korea became a colony of Japan. Korean culture was suppressed, and substantial portions of the Korean population were enslaved, including large numbers of women who were forced to have sex with Japanese soldiers during World War II.

When Japan was defeated in World War II, Korea was freed by the Allies from Japanese colonial rule. But, Korea’s problems were far from over. The Soviets insisted that Korea be part of their sphere of influence; the US wanted Korea as part of our sphere of influence. Each took half of the country, with the Soviets installing a Communist government in the North, and the US installing a pro-western government in the South. This division of Korea into two countries, imposed by the outside world, has continued ever since.

In 1950, North Korea (presumably prompted by the Soviets) invaded the South to try to reunite Korea by force. The US was taken by surprise, and US and South Korean forces were initially driven into retreat. However, the US turned the tide with a skillful amphibious assault, driving the communist North Koreans far back into their own territory.

For a while, it seemed that the US would successfully reunite Korea under a US-backed government. Unfortunately, General Douglas McArthur, the US Commander, wasn’t content with just reuniting Korea. He repeatedly and publicly announced his plans – which were opposed by President Truman -- to invade China as soon as the North Koreans were defeated. Since Korea shares a major border with China, close to Beijing, this was no idle threat. China, which previously had avoided involvement in this war, sent over a million troops to aid the North Koreans. President Truman fired General McArthur for insubordination, but by that time, the war had escalated into a major conflict between the US and China. [Technically, the troops aiding South Korea were under United Nations control, but most were in fact Americans.]

The results of this conflict between the US and China were tragic. The Koreans were devastated, with approximately 4 million Koreans killed -- more than one-tenth of their total population. Two-thirds of Koreans killed were civilians. Perhaps as many as one million Chinese soldiers were also killed. The United States lost about 37,000 soldiers, and other UN nations fighting on the US side lost an additional 3,300.

The Korean war dragged on until 1953, eventually ending in a division between North and South that was almost exactly the same as when the war started. A cease-fire was declared, but no peace treaty was ever signed. A massive fortified border (the ironically named “Demilitarized Zone”) separates the two Koreas. Tens of thousands of US troops are still stationed on the Korean peninsula to ensure that the North doesn’t invade the South again.

In the subsequent decades after the Korean War, South Korea received massive aid from the United States, its economy expanded, and it eventually became quite democratic by Asian standards. (In other words, its leaders are now elected by popular vote, but there isn’t the level of free speech found in the west.) North Korea became a totalitarian communist state under “Great Leader” Kim Il-sung. The violence of the Korean War increased North Koreans’ fear of the outside world, and North Korea became one of the most isolated countries on earth. When the Soviet Union collapsed, North Korea lost its source of outside aid. In the 1990’s, years of bad weather lead to a major famine, which is still continuing.

Kim Il-sung’s son Kim Jong-il (a.k.a. “Dear Leader”) now rules North Korea. (The elder Kim died in 1994.) North Korea is still an intensely repressive, totalitarian society, and people who attempt to flee the famine are regarded as traitors. There have been some signs of opening up, especially a meeting in which Kim Jong-il actually shook hands with South Korean leader Kim Dae-jung. (Yes, that’s right: North Korea’s leader and South Korea’s leader have almost identical names. It could have been even more confusing; South Korea also has a prominent politician named Kim Jong-pil. If he were elected, we'd have Kim Jong-il meeting with Kim Jong-pil.) However, many in the United States fear that North Korea is simply giving lip service to the idea of reform, in order to get international aid.

It’s almost impossible for Americans to travel to North Korea, so I can’t give you any first-hand impressions of what is going on there. I did have an interesting conversation last year with a Chinese diplomat while I was in Beijing last year, however. She said that Kim Jong-il is interested in opening up to the outside world, but that his officials, and the North Korean people, are so afraid of the outside world that he can’t move quickly.

Regardless of whether this assessment of Kim Jong-il is accurate or not, there is no question in my mind that the North Koreans are terrified of the outside world in general, and of the United States in particular. I believe that we have always had the best of intentions regarding North Korea. However, many North Koreans don’t realize this. Their perceptions of Americans are shaped by the violence of the Korean War, including at least one substantial massacre of Korean civilians by US troops.

So, how can the US best end the problems with North Korea? Well, perhaps we can answer that question by asking why North Korea is today so tragically different from South Korea. Initially, they were part of one country, with no major distinctions between them. The only reason for their divergent paths is that South Korea got aid from the US, while North Korea got a failed ideology from the Soviets. We can’t wave a magic wand and transform the North Koreans’ way of thinking, but we can give them aid and show that our intervention on the Korean peninsula was never meant to cause them suffering. With the Soviets gone, there is nothing to stop us from "adopting" the north of Korea like we did the south. This is our best hope for reuniting the two Koreas, and it would be cheaper in the long run than keeping tens of thousands of US troops on the Korean Peninsula.

2002-06-14T07:27:00.000-04:00

On other sites:
Al Qaeda as Cult

Interesting idea over at group-blog Silflay Hraka: Al Qaeda can be thought of a sort of cult. In particular, it has these three hallmarks of a cult: "Intensely shared and bonding beliefs; religious expectations about a dramatic world change; [and] high degree of group cohesiveness and social regimentation within an authoritarian structure..."

I would add that Al Qaeda members are (or were, since presumably many of them are now dead) completely isolated from the rest of the world. This sort of isolation tends to cause "group polarization," a tendancy for beliefs to become increasingly extreme due to lack of exposure to opposing views.

In case thinking about this has depressed you, scroll down the page on Silfay Hraka to read How to know when we've won the war on terrorism. (Way #14: The number one rated show on Al-Jazeera is "Queer as Folk".)

2002-06-14T00:46:00.000-04:00

Timing is wrong for Palestinian Statehood
Statehood now would reward suicide bombings

President Bush is considering pushing for a Palestinian state. While I think a Palestinian state is desirable in the long run, and may be essential to a permanent solution in the Mideast, this is clearly the wrong time to push for Palestinian statehood. If statehood was granted now, terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade would feel that the suicide bombings had worked. It would send a message that terrorism is effective, and encourage future terrorist attacks. It's simple operant conditioning -- if a behavior brings rewards, that behavior will be repeated.

I don't know why President Bush is considering this plan. Perhaps he is in fact trying to appease the suicide bombers, or perhaps he wants Arab support prior to launching an attack on Iraq. In either case, it's a bad idea. Even just publicly announcing that the President may push for Palestinian statehood is likely to encourage the terrorists. "We're almost there," terrorists will think. "Just a few more buses and ice cream parlors destroyed, and the President will give in!"

A much better approach would be an offer to create a Palestinian state, on at least some of the disputed land, if a certain amount of time passes with no more suicide bombings. I discuss such a plan in two of my essays below. Peace first, then statehood.

2002-06-13T01:47:00.000-04:00

On other sites:
US News says many nurses leave because of arrogant doctors
Gee, I thought doctors only acted like that towards their patients.

2002-06-12T18:19:00.000-04:00

Why Fencing off the West Bank is a Good Idea

Last week’s car bombing that killed 17 Israelis was the final straw – Israel is starting to fence off the West Bank. A fence already separates the Gaza Strip from Israel and has been largely successful; no suicide bombers have entered Israel from Gaza during the current uprising.

The new fence may not be as successful as the one around Gaza – current plans have it running only along the northern part of the West Bank. Furthermore, Israelis and Palestinians live so close together that at several points there is simply no room to put the fence (which is 130 feet wide) between them. Therefore, the current plan leaves three Palestinian towns on the Israeli side of the fence. Still, based on the experience in Gaza, this new fence will likely reduce the number of attacks.

Why didn’t Israel put up a fence earlier? Many Israeli settlers oppose the fence ; by necessity, their West Bank settlements will be on the Palestinian side. The settlers see the fence as a precursor to Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, and they are probably right. What some people will find more surprising is that the fence is also opposed by many Palestinians. One would expect Palestinians to welcome this sign of Israeli retreat from the West Bank – if the Palestinians’ real goal was an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza. However, many Palestinians still cling to (the unrealistic) hope of completely destroying the state of Israel. For them, a step towards separation into two states is a step in the wrong direction.

One thing Israel must avoid is making the Palestinians feel rewarded for terrorism. If building a fence was followed by a immediate withdrawal from the West Bank, Palestinians would feel that the suicide bombings had gained them territory. However, there is no need for Israel to withdraw from fenced areas; Gaza has been fenced for years, and is still under Israeli control. As I detailed in an earlier essay, Israel should make the following offer to the Palestinian Authority: "If one year passes with no Palestinians attacks on Israeli civilians, Israel will permanently give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians.” I am aware that the Palestinians are likely to reject this offer, and continue the violence. However, I feel this offer is a no-risk proposition for Israelis that support the creation of a Palestinians state. If the Palestinians accept the offer, the violence would stop. If the Palestinians refuse the offer, Israel would have lost nothing, and would have shown the world that Israel truly wants peace. Some readers may ask: “Is there anyone on the Palestinian side that has the ability to accept this offer, and order the suicide bombings to stop?” The answer to that is clearly yes; the terrorist attacks in Israel stopped for about six months after 9/11, because the Palestinian leadership knew world opinion would be against them is they attacked. Clearly, Palestinian leadership can stop the suicide bombings if they want to.

Either way, whether the Palestinians are willing to stop the violence or not, the fence will be useful. If the Palestinians do stop the attacks, the fence can serve as the basis for a border between the two states. If the Palestinians try to continue the attacks, the fence should stop at least some of them. I am thrilled that Israel is building this barrier. The current intifada has shown that the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza do not want to coexist peacefully with Israelis, leaving Israel with no option but to carry on without them.

2002-06-11T23:49:00.000-04:00

Collection Agency Scam Targets Child Support
What will agency demand next - maybe 34% of any candy given to a baby?

In addition to deadbeat non-custodial parents and support amounts that are set too low, single parents now have a new obstacle to face when trying to get money for their kids. According to a lawsuit filed by single mother Patricia Zipperer, a private collection agency named Supportkids offered to try to collect the $7,000 in past due child support that she was owed, in exchange for a 34% cut of any money received. However, according to the suit, Supportkids never made any attempt to collect the past due balance, and instead insisted that they were entitled to 34% of all current and future child support payments. When Zipperer complained, Supportkids claimed their contract entitled them to a cut of all future child support payments, whether they collected any of the past due balance or not. According to Supportkids, Zipperer was entitled to back out of the agreement only if the father of her son went a full year without paying any child support at all.

I realize that collection agencies are entitled to their fee if they actually collect overdue debt. If states fail to enforce child support, that is their fault, not the fault of a collection agency. But, this is not a case of a collection agency wanting payment for work done; this is a case of a collection agency taking money without doing any work. Zipperer says Supportkids never even contacted her son’s father. Furthermore, it is highly irregular for a collection agency to demand a percentage of current or future payments that are made on a timely basis. The industry standard is that collection agencies only receive a percentage of past due balances collected.

Supportkids says that clients were told that Supportkids would take 34% of any child support paid in the future. Zipperer says she was never told this and was promised she would risk nothing by trying Supportkids. I have no access to the actual contract Zipperer signed, but I did go to Supportkids’ website. Their website says in large letters: “We collect unpaid child support.” [Emphasis mine.] The site repeatedly makes reference to unpaid, past due support owed, with no mention at all of any current or future child support payments. Furthermore, the site clearly states “Our service is risk free: It costs you nothing unless you receive your unpaid child support.”

I read several of the testimonial letters posted on their site; they all mentioned successful collection of past due child support, with no mention of losing a share of future child support. They did do a good job of guilt-tripping parents who didn’t want to sign up with Supportkids, however. One letter prominently states, “You are silently telling your children that they are not worth fighting for,” if you don’t sign up with Supportkids. Another letter mentions the risk-free nature of Supportkids’ services.

I’m not a lawyer, but I think Zipperer has a strong case. Even if a court finds that the misleading statements on the website don’t invalidate the contract, there is still the issue of “neglect of consideration.” In other words, for a contract to be valid, both parties must receive something of benefit. Since Supportkids did not provide a service (they apparently didn’t try to collect the past due child support), it’s hard to see how they could be entitled to payment.

2002-06-10T11:32:00.000-04:00

Skakel Convicted of 1975 Murder
Brother denounces trial as “witch hunt”

I was away for the weekend and had problems getting on the Internet, so this is my first update since Thursday. Therefore my post on the Martha Moxley case is rather belated. (Although not nearly as belated as the verdict in this 27-year-old murder case.)

If you haven’t been following the case, Moxley was bludgeoned to death in 1975, at the age of 15. A man who was her neighbor at the time, Michael Skakel, was convinced of the murder last Thursday. Skakel was also 15 at the time of the murder. Media attention has focused on the case because Skakel is the nephew of Ethel Kennedy, widow of Robert Kennedy.

There are many aspects of this case that deserve comment, but this statement by Skakel's brother David caught my attention: "For us this trial has felt like a witch hunt. Our family remains more resolute than ever." Of course, I have no way to tell how the case felt to the Skakel family. However, there is a big difference between this case and a witch hunt. Unless witchcraft is real, and I don’t believe it is, then there were no real witches. Therefore, the people who were tried (and often executed) for witchcraft were in fact being tried for nonexistent crimes; no actual witchcraft had taken place. In the Martha Moxley case, however, there is no question that the crime really happened; Martha was murdered. Given that her body was found at the edge of the Skakel property, that the murder weapon was an unusual item (an expensive golf club) known to be possessed by the Skakels, and that Martha was last seen with a member of the Skakel family, it’s no surprise that suspicion has focused on the Skakels. I can’t see this case as a witch hunt.

So, is Michael Skakel really the murderer? I think he probably is, but I was surprised that he was convicted. I didn’t think there was enough evidence to convince a jury, particular since the case was not investigated properly back in 1975. However, I don’t see how the jury can be faulted in this case; they clearly took the case very seriously, deliberating for several days.

An appeal is expected. The defense has several possible grounds for an appeal, including that Skakel was tried as an adult for a crime that took place when he was a juvenile, and that Connecticut had a statute of limitations for non-capital murder cases at the time of Moxley’s death.

2002-06-06T18:01:00.000-04:00

On other sites:
It's Nice to be (Bearly) Noticed

N. Z. Bear gave me a link in his section on liberal bloggers. The good news: he says that I score “zero on the obnoxious meter” and gives me “high points for good intentions.” The bad news: he doesn’t agree with what I say. Hmm, would he like my blog more if I said that Charles Manson’s followers should be paroled? No, I suppose not.

Anyway, N. Z. Bear has a fascinating “map of the blogosphere” on his site, The Truth Made Bear. It shows who links to whom, in a variety of tabular and graphical forms. Highly recommended.

2002-06-06T06:55:00.000-04:00

My Serene Proposal for Peace in the Mideast

Yesterday brought news of another terrorist attack in Israel; a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb next to a bus and killed 17 people. This latest incident is a tragic reminder of the desperate need for a solution to the Arab – Israeli conflict. There is growing agreement among Israelis about what a solution might look like; the majority of Israelis now feel that some sort of separation from the Palestinians is the best chance for peace.

Although separation may be necessary for peace, there is a problem with implementing it. Giving any land to the Palestinians now would reward the suicide bombers and lead to more violence. Consider what happened in South Lebanon, where Palestinian violence prompted an Israeli withdrawal. One might hope that since the Palestinians achieved their goal of an Israeli withdrawal, they would have less reason to be angry and would resort less to violence. But, that’s not how human nature works. When a behavior is rewarded, that behavior tends to recur. So, rather than reducing Palestinians' eagerness to use violence, the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon was followed by even more Palestinian violence.

So, what can Israel do? Some Palestinian supporters might say "Israel should give the Palestinians the Gaza Strip and the whole West Bank. Then, the Palestinians would have all their demands met, and would have no further reason to resort to violence." Unfortunately, that's not true. Many Palestinians are still committed to the destruction of the State of Israel -- Hamas and many of the terrorist groups even say so openly. If all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were turned over to the Palestinians tomorrow, the terrorists would feel that their plan to dismantle the whole State of Israel was working, and the suicide bombings would likely increase.

So, if a permanent solution requires giving land to the Palestinians, but giving land now would encourage more suicide bombings, what's the way out of this impasse? Here's a proposal. Israel should make the following offer to the Palestinian Authority: "If one year passes with no Palestinians attacks on Israeli civilians, Israel will permanently give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians." With this proposal, land would be a reward for abjuring violence, rather than a reward for resorting to violence. Once the Gaza Strip was transferred to the Palestinians, Israel would then offer part of the West Bank in exchange for another year of no violence, followed by another part of the West Bank for an additional year of no violence, until the separation envisioned by many Israelis was achieved. At that point, Israel could then build a fortified border to try to keep terrorists out. Some Palestinians would no doubt be unsatisfied with the amount of land their side had received. But, by then the cycle of violence would have been broken, and a pattern that peace is rewarded would be established.

Palestinians and their supporters might object that there is no way to be sure that Israel would keep its word to deliver land in exchange for peace. Well, even if Israel went back on its word (which would be very stupid), what would Palestinians have lost? Would-be suicide bombers would have spent a year waiting to become "martyrs" rather than blowing themselves up immediately, that's all. They could always blow themselves up later, if Israel didn't hold up its end of the bargain. The Palestinians have tried violence for 54 years and have overall ended up worse than when they started; they might as well try peace for a year to see if it is more effective.

Supporters of Israel might say this plan would never work because the Palestinians would never give up violence for a year. Well, they may be right. But, if the Palestinians reject a clear offer of land in exchange for peace, that would at least show the world which side is the obstacle.

2002-06-06T06:51:00.000-04:00

How to get your blog listed here

I'm interested in helping out other new bloggers. So, rather than linking to the same old group of well-known blogs, or having a huge overwhelming list of every blog I can find, I plan to review blogs upon request. If you would like your blog listed here, please send me an email. I'll check out your blog, and if I like it, I'll link to it.

Is this open only to new, unknown blogs? Nah. Even the biggies can get listed this way, if they will stoop to sending me an email.

2002-06-05T08:24:00.000-04:00

Will Killer from “Manson Family” be Paroled?
Judge says life without parole is unauthorized sentence for Van Houten

According to cnn.com, Superior Court Judge Bob Krug has faulted California’s Parole Board for its decision to deny parole to Leslie Van Houten. Van Houten, a follower of Charles Manson, was convicted of the 1969 murder of Rosemary LaBianca and of conspiracy in the 1969 murder of actress Sharon Tate. An additional five people were killed by Manson and his followers in the Tate/LaBianca murders.

Judge Krug gave the parole board 60 days to come up with a justification for refusing parole to Van Houten, and to say what Van Houten must do to earn parole. He said, "To hold that the gravity of the offense outweighs all of the positive factors ... without some supporting reasoned factual basis is arbitrary and capricious.” The judge complained that Van Houten is in effect serving "a sentence of life without parole, a sentence unauthorized by law." In other words, Judge Krug is saying that regardless of the serious of the offense, Van Houten must be eligible for parole if she behaves well while in prison.

I’m no lawyer, so I can’t comment on the judge’s reasoning. However, I hope that Leslie Van Houten doesn’t get paroled, for two reasons. First, Van Houton may still pose a threat to society. The Tate/LaBianca killings were so bizarre, that it’s hard to understand why they were committed. Without a good understanding of the motive, it’s difficult to say whether the Manson “family” members will try to kill again. Manson follower Lynnette Fromme tried to kill President Gerald Ford years after the Tate/La Bianca murders. Second, releasing Van Houton would be traumatic to the families of her victims, and to many other members of society. Past parole reviews of Manson family members have triggered substantial alarm among victims’ families and the general public; actually releasing a Manson follower would no doubt be far more distressing. Manson and his followers have done plenty of emotional damage already, why add to it?

Is it fair to keep Van Houton in prison for life? Well, Van Houton was originally sentenced to death. Her sentence was commuted to life in prison only because California’s death penalty was temporarily overturned. Given that the original sentence was death, life without parole doesn’t seem particularly harsh. While the jury that sentenced her did not specifically say that she should never be eligible for parole, they clearly didn’t want her released; they wanted her dead. Van Houten should just try to make the most of her life in prison. Rosemary LaBianca and the other victims don’t get to have any kind of life at all.

2002-06-03T18:48:00.000-04:00

Catholic Journal Objects to Coverage of Sexual Abuse
The Church needs to realize that its failure to protect children is the real scandal

Hard to believe, but true: A prominent Catholic journal, La Civilta Cattolica, has accused the US media of scandalous behavior for daring to report on the sexual abuse of minors by priests. The journal, which has all its content approved by the Vatican before publication, said the media coverage was driven by a ''morbid and scandalistic curiosity,'' and claimed that the real motivation behind the coverage was anti-Catholic prejudice.

So, we have a Church that knows for decades that its priests are molesting children, and doesn't speak out. But, when the Church gets bad press, then it speaks out. The evidence is accumulating that not only doesn't the Catholic hierarchy care about the safety of children, they don't even realize that they are supposed to care about the safety of children. Don't they realize how this article looks? They appear to be saying that sexual abuse of children is no big deal, but criticizing the Church for sexual abuse is a scandal.

The Church also doesn't seem to realize that other people (such as parents) care about the safety of children. If the media are paying a lot of attention to the scandal, it can't possibly be because people are frightened and outraged by the sexual abuse of children. No, it must all be an anti-Catholic plot, the Church thinks. I have news for the College of Cardinals -- many of the people most upset by the sex abuse cases are Catholic.

The original Civilta Cattolica article is in Italian, but translated excerpts have been carried by a number of US papers, including an article in the Boston Globe.

2002-06-03T08:00:00.000-04:00

Why Arming the Public Won't Deter Crime
The typical criminal just isn't rational enough to act in his own best interest

Recently, I checked out Armed and Dangerous, a new blog written by Open Source guru Eric Raymond. As you might guess from the name, a lot of it is about guns. More particularly, a lot of it advocates that an armed citizenry deters crime.

I’ve tried to keep an open mind about this possibility, but I just don’t see it. I’m not reflexively anti-gun; in fact, both of my parents belonged to the NRA for many years; my being female has not prevented me from firing a gun; and yes, my husband and I own a gun. But, no matter how hard I try, I just can’t see how giving everyone guns is going to prevent crime.

Now, some of you are probably thinking “You moron! If the criminals get shot to death, they can’t commit any more crimes.” And, this is certainly true. (The part about them being unable to commit more crimes, that is. Not the part about my being a moron.) However, actually shooting a criminal in the act is fairly rare, even in places that have both lots of guns and lots of violent crime, such as Texas. And, most gun advocates recognize this, and aren’t claiming that an armed citizenry will remove a substantial number of criminals from the gene pool. No, the usual argument is that an armed citizenry actually deters crime; that is, it makes would-be criminals decide not to commit crimes in the first place

This is where “arm the citizenry” advocates such as Eric lose me. Yes, if more ordinary citizens had guns, committing a crime would become more dangerous. The problem is, we’re talking about trying to deter violent thugs, not accountants. The typical mugger, or rapist, or murderer, doesn’t sit around calculating risk-benefit ratios. Even if the risks of committing a crime are raised, the average violent criminal may not care, or even notice. This is because most violent criminals have one or more of the following three characteristics: 1) Sociopathy: Sociopaths are people who lack empathy and remorse. Anyone who commits a murder “because it’s fun” is clearly a sociopath. Unfortunately, sociopaths are also characterized by a lack of fear and are notoriously unresponsive to the prospect of future injury or punishment. Some of them would probably think the risk of being shot just makes things more exciting. 2) Rage: A fair amount of violent crimes occur when the perpetrator is enraged. This is a poor state of mind in which to conduct a risk-benefit analysis. 3) Intoxication: Many crimes occur when the perpetrator is drunk or under the influence of other mind-altering substances. Again, a person in this state is unlikely to rationally weigh the pros and cons of committing a crime.

So, even though a rational person would be deterred from crime by an armed citizenry, violent criminals probably won’t be deterred, because they aren’t behaving rationally in the first place.

Now, astute readers may have noticed a disturbing corollary to this argument. If criminals aren’t deterred by the prospect of being shot, how can they be deterred by the prospect of prison, or by the prospect of any other punishment? Well, I do not, in fact, think most potential criminals are deterred by the prospect of future punishment. However, because of operant conditioning, they can be deterred by the experience of having been punished in the past. In other words, criminals who are punished the first time they commit crimes are less likely to commit crimes in the future. Since most criminals start with relatively minor crimes, such as theft, it should be possible to deter many criminals before they progress to more serious offenses. Of course, this would require giving actual punishment for these minor crimes, rather than probation.

By the way, Eric’s latest piece suggests scrapping airline security inspections, so that passengers can bring guns onto planes and defend themselves against any would-be hijackers. I don’t expect that this would reduce the number of hijackings, but it certainly would make cases of “air rage” more exciting!

2002-06-02T04:37:00.000-04:00

Critics of Recovered Memory Ask the Wrong Question
We know that therapy can produce false memories. But what proportion of "recovered memories" were produced by therapy?

Salon.com has a fascinating review of the latest book by Laura Davis, "I Thought We'd Never Speak Again: The Road From Estrangement to Reconciliation." Davis is one of the authors of "The Courage to Heal", a 1988 book that served as the "bible" of the recovered memory movement. This movement used techniques such as hypnosis to "uncover hidden memories" of childhood sexual abuse, in the belief that acknowledging the abuse was essential for healing. "The Courage to Heal" was notorious for rash statements such as "If you think you were abused, and your life shows the symptoms, you were," and for encouraging suspected victims of abuse to cut off relations with their families. Davis' new book backpedals considerably from that view, encouraging reconciliation even when family members disagree on whether abuse occurred.

Salon's article is not so much a review of Davis’ new book as it is an indictment of the recovered memory movement. It says that many people were damaged by the recovered memory movement and that many of the "recovered memories" were false. I agree with these points; in fact, some of the techniques used in the movement were more like brainwashing than therapy and were almost guaranteed to produce false memories if used for long enough. However, the Salon article suffers from a lack of balance. It barely admits the possibility of real recovered memories, ignoring the fact that a number cases of true recovered memories have been documented.

Unfortunately, this lack of balance in the Salon article is typical of writing about the recovered memory movement. Most authors either take the position that essentially all recovered memories are true, or go for the opposite extreme and imply that all recovered memories are false. Lately, there has been tremendous attention paid to documented cases of false memory, and little or no attention to the equally well documented cases of true recovered memories. This unbalanced approach does a disservice to those who wonder if they were abused. The fact is, no one knows what proportion of recovered memories are accurate. Sure, we know that certain techniques such as hypnosis can cloud memory. But, consider cases in which a memory spontaneous emerges -- for example, cases in which a retrieval cue such as visiting a childhood home causes someone to suddenly remember an event that had been forgotten for many years. Are most of these "emerging memories" accurate, or are they misrecollections? We have no way to tell.

Most memories that have proved to be false were induced by hypnosis, repeated asking of leading questions, or other "recovered memory therapy"; most memories that were later shown to be accurate were triggered by naturally occurring retrieval cues. However, we have no idea what proportion of "recovered memories" occur naturally, and what proportion are the result of dubious therapy techniques. We don't even know whether spontaneously emerging memories are common or rare. Whether spontaneously emerging memories are usually accurate or usually false is still an open question – one that few people even seem to be asking.

2002-06-01T22:17:00.000-04:00

Medical Fee Follies
The first of a continuing series

A while ago, my husband went in for a routine eye exam. It seemed to go well, until the doctor's office billed us. The price for an eye exam wasn't too awful, but we had been billed for two eye exams. I called the doctor's office and said we had been accidentally double-billed; they insisted that wasn't the case. After a bit of back-and-forth, it transpired that the doctor did indeed feel he had done two exams -- one of the right eye, and one of the left eye. We had to pay both bills.

I just hope my dentist doesn't try this approach.

2002-05-22T10:05:00.000-04:00

No Need to Fear Designer Clones
Despite Fukuyama's fears, technology to clone designer babies is far off

Libertarians have been having a field day attacking Francis Fukuyama's arguments that cloning should be restricted. (Mr. Fukuyama first brought up this argument in the Wall Street Journal, but I think his later arguments are clearer.) I agree that cloning should not be restricted. However, my reasoning differs from the libertarians'; I believe that the Fukuyama fears are not technically feasible.

What worries Mr. Fukuyama is the prospect of parents custom selecting traits to make designer babies. Suppose, for example, someone creates a "medical procedure that would guarantee that your child didn't have a biological propensity to be gay ....through the result of millions of parents making this kind of decision, you [have] basically eliminated gays from the population." Similarly, "what if you decide you don't like aggressive children .... Then you no longer have either innovation or people just standing up for principle, because it turns out that in the human psyche it all comes from the same source."

Fortunately for Mr. Fukuyama, we are nowhere near creating even one "designer baby" through cloning, let alone having all babies be custom-designed clones. Even if someone succeeds in cloning a human soon, cloning will still be immensely difficult and expensive, since it requires IVF (in-vitro fertilization) as well as a whole host of even higher-tech treatments. For the foreseeable future, and perhaps forever, having a child the old-fashioned way will be immensely easier, cheaper, and more fun.

Secondly, even if cloning itself were easy, that still leaves the problem of specifying particular traits. We have no idea what genes might code for homosexuality and aggression, or even if there are genes that code for these things. (Well, I suppose some people might consider the Y chromosome as the aggression chromosome, given men's tendency to be more aggressive than women. But, techniques for sex selection already exist, that are far easier than cloning.) As someone who studies human social interaction, I can assure you that progress in this area is agonizingly slow. By the time we have the technology to engineer specific behaviors into cloned babies, our local government may well be the United Federation of Planets, and any laws passed today will be moot. We don't need to give designer clones a high priority in the good ol' U.S. of A.

2002-05-19T23:50:00.000-04:00

EU Countries Agree to Take 13 Palestinian Militants
Why isn't France taking any?

CNN.com reports that "The European Union has agreed how to distribute 13 Palestinian militants exiled to Europe.... The men, who were holed up in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem during Israel's military offensive, are currently in Cyprus, where they are awaiting relocation to the European Union." According to the report, Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Belgium will each take one or more, with one of the Palestinians remaining in Cyprus.

Conspicuously absent from this list of countries is France. This is surprising because France, of all the European countries, has been the most adamant that the Palestinians are not to blame for the violence in the Mideast. It was, after all, one of France's ambassadors who said the problems were all the fault of that "shitty little country," Israel.

So, if the Palestinians are blameless in the Mideast violence, then these 13 alleged militants must in actuality be nice, peaceful guys, right? In that case, why isn't France eager to invite all of these upstanding individuals into their country?

2002-05-19T04:45:00.000-04:00

LA Ponders Charging Cardinal Mahoney
Cardinal Mahony knew priest was a child molester but refused to inform the police; he then gave priest continued access to children on the grounds that the priest had not been convicted of molestation

According to cnn.com, "City officials Friday asked the Los Angeles Police Department to investigate whether Cardinal Roger Mahony and others within the archdiocese may have violated criminal laws by failing to report allegations of child sexual abuse."

The most damaging allegations against Cardinal Mahony concern the case of Rev. Michael Stephen Baker, accused of molesting boys as young as 5 years old. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Baker described going to the offices of the archdiocese in 1986 and telling Mahony of his problem with sexual abuse. He said that in one meeting, an archdiocese lawyer suggested calling the police but that Mahony said no….. Baker continued to have frequent access to children over the next 14 years while he was assigned to nine different parishes. Six of the churches where Baker worked had elementary schools adjacent to the rectory… In an interview last month, the cardinal said the archdiocese had few options in dealing with Baker because the allegations against him were unproven. ‘Our biggest problem was that ... he wasn't found guilty of a criminal act,’ Mahony said. ‘That's a big problem.’”

So, just in case you missed it, Cardinal Mahony knew that Baker was a child molester and refused to inform the police, and then gave Baker continued access to children on the grounds that Baker had not been convicted of molestation. Hard to believe, isn’t it? But wait, there’s more. Not only weren’t the police informed, but the victims’ parents, and even the other parish priests, were not informed that Baker posed a danger.

Some additional details, courtesy of the LA Times: Two years ago, Cardinal Mahony authorized a secret 1.3 million dollar settlement with two brothers who complained that Baker had molested them for years. However, Mahony was still trying to keep the case from the police: “But leaked e-mail correspondence between top archdiocese officials reveals that Mahony was reluctant to turn over Baker's name to police as recently as late March.”

By the way, the idea that Cardinal Mahony’s hands were tied due to lack of a criminal conviction is ludicrous. There is absolutely no requirement that the Church wait for a criminal conviction before removing a priest from his post or defrocking him. In fact, clergy who challenge Church authority are routinely sent to posts in isolated places or defrocked, even though they have done nothing worse than exercise their freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, the Church has done a poor job of policying itself. Involving the civil authorities may be the only way to protect children in the future.

2002-05-17T23:34:00.000-04:00

Carter Criticized for Speaking Out
Essay Implies that Free Speech is "Undemocratic"

Chris Suellentrop presents the following argument, which I find very strange, in today's issue of Slate. Suellentrop says that Former President Jimmy Carter's activities sometimes undermine, or attempt to undermine, the policies set by the US's democratically elected President, and that therefore these activities are themselves undemocratic. What activities does Suellentrop have in mind? Meeting with foreign officials and giving them advice, talking to the media, writing letters, and speaking out on policies Carter favors -- in short, the exact behaviors that most of us would call "free speech." Since when is free speech "undemocratic?"

According to Suellentrop, if Former President Carter doesn't like US foreign policy, his only options should be to "work within the system" by lobbying Congress. (Presumably, lobbying the executive branch of the US government would also be OK with Suellentrop, although he doesn't explicitly say so.) Making direct statements to the press or to people outside the US amounts to "conducting a guerrilla foreign policy operation," says Suellentrop.

Let's think about this for a moment. I regularly get letters from groups such as Amnesty International, who ask me to write directly to heads of foreign governments and request the release of imprisoned dissidents. Would doing this be "undemocratic?" Would putting out a press release saying that dissidents should be freed, or writing the UN and asking them to take action, be undemocratic? Presumably not; Suellentrop seems to think that speaking out is undemocratic only if it "undermine the foreign policy of America's democratically elected president." So, Suellentrop is saying that in a democracy, public statements should only be made if they agree with the current government. Now, there are plenty of countries in the world that follow this policy -- public statements may be made only if they agree with the government -- but these countries are not democracies. (North Korea is a good example.)

Perhaps you think I'm being unfair to Suellentrop. After all, the current government of the US was elected democratically. (Well, more or less, depending on what you think of that little vote counting problem in Florida.) North Korea's leader definitely was not elected democratically. Therefore, perhaps it is democratic to criticize a dictator like Kim Jong Il but undemocratic to criticize a democratically elected leader like George W. Bush. Sorry, nothing doing. Being democratically elected shouldn't shield a government from criticism. The Nazis initially came to power through an election. If a German citizen had written to the international press saying he disagreed with the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and minorities, would that have been undemocratic? I certainly don't think so.

Well, there is one more argument that Suellentrop could try. Maybe its OK for an ordinary citizen to speak out on foreign policy, but not for a former President like Jimmy Carter. I don't buy that, either. Why should having been elected leader of the US reduce one's right to free speech?

So, anyway I look at it, Carter's entitled to say what he thinks when it comes to foreign policy. It's not a "guerilla operation" unless it involves a gun.

2002-05-16T22:04:00.000-04:00

Bad Health Advice on the Internet, Part One
The first installment of what will no doubt become a long series, since there's no shortage of material

Her Sereneness (that's me) has a confession to make. I am an insomniac. Not just a garden-variety insomniac, but an industrial-strength, world-class, major-league insomniac. So, a few nights ago, probably at about four in the morning, I was surfing the web looking for advice on beating insomnia. While sifting through the usual useless platitudes ("Try to fall asleep at the same time each night" -- if I could do that, I wouldn't be an insomniac), I came across a site called www.dreamdoctor.com, run by some guy who has a dream analysis show on the radio in California.

Mr. Dreamdoctor has a section on his site about insomnia, where some poor 17-year kid had written in about his problem. He signed his letter "Desperate." It was obvious to me that "Desperate" was suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), where unwanted, unpleasant thoughts keep running through ones mind. Yet, he was not given any advice about OCD, just bland advice like "get up at the same time each day" and "make a list of your worries before you go to bed."

I was dismayed that "Desperate" had gotten so little help, so I wrote to Mr. DreamDoctor. Here is (most of) the text of my email:

"It is obvious to me that this boy needs evaluation for OCD. His sleep problems are caused by repetitive, obsessive thoughts. His thoughts about his insomnia are themselves obsessive. He even mentions having an 'obsessive-compulsive attitude' towards schoolwork.

The bland sleep hygiene advice he was given trivializes his problem. Rather than helping him, it is likely to make him feel that he is at fault for his problem. The longer OCD is left untreated, the harder it is to cure, so he should be encouraged to seek OCD treatment immediately, rather than trying a bunch of irrelevant lifestyle changes first. This boy's problem is quite serious -- he says 'I hate myself because I can't stop thinking,' says the problem is driving him crazy, and signs himself 'Desperate.' Ignoring his OCD is extremely irresponsible.

This is what I would have said to this boy: 'You are obviously very smart, because you have already figured out the cause of your problem. You are having obsessive thoughts, one of the hallmarks of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Your mind is getting stuck playing a thought over and over again, like a broken record. It's not really known why some people have this problem, but it may be biological, since it runs in families. OCD often responds to prescription medication. I'd ask your parents to schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist. OCD responds best if treated soon after onset, so you should be evaluated soon.'"

I sent this email 5 days ago; no response yet. Maybe Mr. DreamDoctor is asleep on the job.

2002-05-16T13:41:00.000-04:00

Index: International Relations

My Serene Proposal for Peace in the Mideast 6/6/2002 6:55 AM

EU Countries Agree to Take 13 Palestinian Militants 5/19/02 11:50 PM
Why isn't France taking any?

Carter Criticized for Speaking Out 5/17/02 11:34 PM
Essay Implies that Free Speech is "Undemocratic"

[index posted 6/04/02]